MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408684248 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.4c13219

Identification of Behaviorally Active Odorants for Adult <i>Chilo sacchariphagus</i> Based on the Binding Properties of Odorant-Binding Proteins toward Host Volatiles

2025· article· en· W4408684248 on OpenAlexaff
Z.J. Wang, Shang XianKun, Zixuan Wu, Ji-Li Wei, Xiaoli Tian, Guohui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Host (biology)Odorant-binding proteinChemistryBiologyOlfactionBiochemistryBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chilo sacchariphagus is the key pest of sugar cane. Due to the difficulty associated with pesticide application in middle and late growth stages of sugar cane, the use of odorant attractants is a beneficial alternative to pesticides. Odorant-binding proteins (OBPs) in the insect olfactory system represent excellent targets for screening odorant attractants. Here, we identified 12 OBPs from the head transcriptome of C. sacchariphagus adults, with four OBPs ( CsacOBP1 /2/5/12) highly enriched in adult antennae. Ligand-binding assays for the four CsacOBPs showed that they can bind with 10 of the 30 host volatiles tested. Behavioral assays revealed that (+)-cedrol and 1-hexadecanol from the 10 compounds can attract the moths of both sexes. Protein–ligand interaction analyses identified five key amino acid residues involved in CsacOBPs’ binding to (+)-cedrol and 1-hexadecanol. These findings have enhanced our molecular understanding of the host plant selection in C. sacchariphagus and have facilitated the development of attractants for C. sacchariphagus .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207